"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "ThreadKiller" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article t>,
>>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LOL I'm not giving MY defintion, fool. I'm giving the
>>>>> definition from the original guy who made up the word and
>>>>> religion. Anything else is a watered down version designed to
>>>>> make YOU feel better about doing nothing of substance.
>>>>> "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of
>>>>> exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes
>>>>> a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the
>>>>> products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish,
>>>>> fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and
>>>>> encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
>>>>> wholly or in part from animals..."
>>>>> Donald Watson, 1944
>>>>
>>>> That's one definition he accepted.
>>> =======================
>>> LOL NO, fool, that's the definition of the word he made up. He made-up
>>> the word, he get's to define it.
>>
>> Well.. yes and no. Language evolves. Words change over time. Yes,
>> Watson made the word up, but that was over 60 years ago, and it has
>> changed by usage. "***" used to mean just "happy", but anyone who thinks
>> that it means exactly the same thing today that it meant in 1920 is
>> either leading an amazingly sheltered life or is being foolish. It's the
>> same with "vegan". We sticklers like to think that words are static, but
>> they aren't. Watson made that word up, but then he released it into the
>> big, wide world of language users. The only way to keep your made-up
>> word from changing is to never let anyone else know about it! Nowadays,
>> when people want to harken back to old definitions, they use terms like
>> "classic" and "old school", so maybe we could avoid confusion by saying
>> "classic veganism" when referring to Donald Watson's veganism. Just a
>> thought.
> =============================
> No, the change in the word is by lazy waanbes that can't be bothered to
> actually live up to the ideals created for veganism. They are smug,
> self-rightous, people-hating hypocrites...

In 60+ years, there have been tons of those, but there have also been plenty
of folks who just asked innocently "What's a vegan?" and were told some
watered down version of the above definition. From there, it went like that
old children's party game, Telephone, and now you have plenty of people who
are not lazy or smug or wannabes but who just ended up, through no fault of
their own, with the altered definition in their heads (whether they apply it
to themselves or not). That's the real world, Rick. You have some very
good arguments here, but if you think that every single person who is
uninformed about the original definition of "vegan" is automatically a lazy,
smug, self-righteous, people-hating, hypocritical wannabe, you're just not
being rational. If that isn't what you believe, my apologies.